The Guardian, Ms Kay Demery
The Guardian, Ms Kay Demery
The Guardian has filed two reports in these proceedings: the first is dated 19 May 2025 and the second is dated 26 September 2025. In her first report the Guardian indicates that she was unable to make any final recommendations in the absence of the report in relation to Dubai law. However, the Guardian did express significant concerns as to the way H’s welfare was being negatively impacted by the ongoing dispute between the parents. The Guardian observed that:
In assessing her wishes and feelings H is understandably confused and is now becoming increasingly aware of the issues between her parents and is
sad that they are not friends. She is trying to put this right by the message she
gave me for her parents, whom she wants to be friends and for them both to be
present in her life. This is a huge burden at her tender age. H told me
initially that she prefers Dubai to England, a country she misses but
subsequently told me she wants to remain in England. In my view, both parents
are likely to be encouraging her to say things to me that will support their
applications, hence I am not convinced that her wishes and feelings in terms of
where she would like to live are authentically her own.
It was clear from my meetings with H that she loves both her parents, but
she has been caught in the middle of a pernicious dispute. The enforced
separations have been harmful to her. At five years of age, she does not have
the capacity to understand or make decisions in her best interests. However, I
was encouraged that H felt able to express in her father’s presence how excited she was at the prospect of seeing her mother.”
Further the Guardian concluded that:
“That said in my assessment the biggest risk factor for H is the animosity
and ongoing litigation over every aspect of her care. Her living arrangements
need to be settled and comprehensive orders, once again of how she safely
spends time with her parents, free from unpleasant scenes. While neither
parent is seeking to resile from some form of shared care there are ongoing
proceedings in the Dubai courts where I understand [mother] has applied
for sole custody.”
In her second report, the Guardian remained concerned as to the impact on H of being exposed to her parents’ conflictual relationship:
“As I said in my previous report what is of upmost importance to H is that her parents are friends and are equally involved in her life. Neither parent can at this stage contemplate moving country to enable this to be realised, which is to her detriment.
There is no ideal solution for H. This harmful litigation needs to stop and for H to enjoy her childhood. She requires her parents to not be
preoccupied with obtaining evidence against each other to use in court
proceedings. She is only five years old, and they have many years of parenting
ahead and they need to find a mechanism to communicate in their daughter’s
best interests as her needs will change over time.”
The Guardian’s overall recommendation is as follows:
“This is a finely balanced matter. There are losses for H in whatever
decision this court makes, the most important of all the loss of one parent in her
day-to-day life. However, there would be more losses for her should she return
to Dubai. She would be in a different country, not only from her father, but also
her maternal and paternal family. She would be reliant upon her mother, albeit
with good friends, for all her needs to be met, at a time when her mother is
adjusting to a dramatic change in her own circumstances and hopes for the
future.
On the finest of margins, I would respectfully recommend that H remains living in the United Kingdom.”
The Guardian makes the following additional recommendations:
“In my view the legal framework around H should best reflect the equal
role that each parent plays in her life, now and moving forward, wherever she
lives.
The zoom contact to remain at six times each week, with scope for her to be
allowed to speak to her mother at other times should H so wish.
In the circumstances of this case and without yet having the benefit of hearing the parent’s evidence it is difficult to be prescriptive about arrangements for H around time spent with her mother and where that would be given the
complexities surrounding travel in and out of Dubai by various family members.
Direct time with H and her mother in Dubai is dependent on the ability or
willingness of her parents to travel between the two countries. Clearly once
H is a little older, she could travel as an unaccompanied minor.
That H continues to spend time with her maternal relatives one weekend
each month.
In the future both parents should be allowed to travel overseas with H
during holiday periods. It is important that the travel itinerary and contact details
is provided to the other parent.
There should be scope to alternate Christmas, and for H to spend around
two thirds of the school holidays with her mother. She spent last Christmas with
her father and if possible, she could spend this Christmas with her mother. On
balance, it would be best for this to be spent in the United Kingdom as the first
Christmas after final hearing.
That [father] provides regular updates on H’s progress, health, and
wellbeing to [mother] and [mother] is allowed to have information about
H’s school and medical professionals so that she can contact them if she
so wishes.
Wherever H lives, the parents will need a means of communication, there
are applications other than Our Family Wizard, suggested by [mother], and
others which do not attract a cost such as https://www.appclose.com
Consideration to be given to parents giving some undertakings, to not apply for travel bans on each other, H or extended family or to make without notice ex-parte applications to either the English or Dubai courts.”
In her helpful oral evidence, Ms Demery said the following. “I have been appalled by the evidence and the lack of focus on H. There has been litigation for this little girl’s entire life. I am very, very worried about her. It was horrifying that she was spoken to in that way by her mother and the maternal grandfather [this is a reference to the 31 July 2025 transcript]. It was emotionally damaging and we are in section 37 territory. The harm, being caused is immense. H is not free to enjoy time with her parents, as they are always looking for evidence. There has been coaching and manipulation by both parents. I am concerned about the levels of acrimony and hostility. There needs to be a means to control matters in this jurisdiction. Maybe a 91 (14) order for two years. Given everything that has happened I consider Dubai a very unsafe jurisdiction for this H in this context.” She then went through welfare checklist factors explaining her advice to the court that it is in H’s best interest to reside in England and not Dubai. She was particularly concerned about the future risk of travel bans being issued in Dubai. She recommended a joint lives with order albeit H would reside with her father. In answer to a question from Ms Kirby she said she did not think either parent was able to promote the other’s relationship with H.
![ZC24P00662 - [2025] EWHC 2691 (Fam)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_0FrGysm.png)